# Polar Bears Again, Is Behe Vindicated?

**URL:** <https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/polar-bears-again-is-behe-vindicated/6085>\
**Category:** Conversation\
**Tags:** Science\
**Created:** [May 6, 2019, 5:28pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/polar-bears-again-is-behe-vindicated/6085 "2019-05-06T17:28:49Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 17

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![evograd](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/evograd/32/1233_2.png) [@evograd](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/evograd)\
**Post date:** [May 7, 2019, 3:24pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/polar-bears-again-is-behe-vindicated/6085/17 "2019-05-07T15:24:23Z")

</div>

Do want to add anything to this thread from last month?

> [@Repeating analysis of human APOB](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/repeating-analysis-of-human-apob/5734):
>
> While studying how Polyphen-2 works, I noticed that one of its features is to use a sequence comparison to help assess the effect of a mutation in a human protein. This made me wonder if the polar bear gene was included as a homolog in the analysis back before the 2014 Liu paper was published. Further I wondered if any new data has come out or any new updates would allow a new prediction by Polyphen for the exact same polar bear mutations. Basically, let’s repeat the Polyphen analysis for the following “damaging” mutations: Gene Position Ancestral Polar bear HDivPred APOB 716 N K possibly damaging APOB 749 D E possibly damaging APOB 2623 D N probably damaging APOB 3920 T P possibly damaging APOB 4418 L H probably damaging [716-alignment] It is predicted exactly the same, which makes it seem like nothing has changed since it is giving the exact same probability to 3 decimal places. We can see the homologs used in the alignment, but I did not find…

---

_[View the full topic](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/polar-bears-again-is-behe-vindicated/6085)._